Micha Bailey [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-08-18 š Original message:A smaller block size would ...
š
Original date posted:2015-08-18
š Original message:A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would
consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed
forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you
need to allow something that was previously invalid.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> s = 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all
> types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making it a
> bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered and
> the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150818/e459cb0b/attachment-0001.html>;
š Original message:A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would
consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed
forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you
need to allow something that was previously invalid.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> s = 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all
> types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making it a
> bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered and
> the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150818/e459cb0b/attachment-0001.html>;